The Zimmerman Trial

[Magic Man]

I agree. Manslaughter would have been more appropriate, imo.

Actually, it turns out manslaughter is an option. Apparently the jury was told or will be told that they could convict him of manslaughter. I'm not even sure that would apply, but that at least would be somewhat appropriate.

 

[Karl R]

A 17 year old was stalked by a man with a gun

Zimmerman did not stalk Martin.
According to Florida law (statute 784.048), stalking would require Zimmerman to repeatedly follow Martin.

"Stand Your Ground" depends on who started the fight ... and how.
According to Florida law (statute 776.013), an individual who is in a location where they are allowed to be (like Zimmerman and Martin were) and who is not engaged in an unlawful act (like Zimmerman and Martin prior to the altercation) has the right to "meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another"

In this situation, it is possible that both Zimmerman and Martin could have been within their "Stand Your Ground" rights. If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun and had reason to believe Zimmerman would shoot him, he would be well within his rights to attack Zimmerman to prevent that from happening. On the other hand, Zimmerman (having his head pounded into the pavement) could reasonably have believed he was about to die.

However, if Martin attacked Zimmerman out of anger instead of fear, or if Zimmerman threatened or attacked Martin out of anger instead of fear, then they would be guilty of assault and/or battery (an unlawful act) and not protected by "Stand Your Ground."

People have assumptions about what happened here, but nobody knows. (Even Zimmerman doesn't know what Martin was thinking at that time.)

Martin may have posed a threat to Zimmerman's life.
According to the FBI's 2011 stats, 6% or 7% of all murders in the U.S. were committed without the use of a weapon: fists, feet, strangulation, etc. (2012 statistics are not available yet.) Given that Zimmerman was on the ground, with a broken nose, with his head being slammed into the pavement, an ordinary person in the same position would have reason to believe he might be killed or suffer great bodily harm (like irreversible brain damage).

But if Martin had clearly stopped attacking (and was standing up to leave), Zimmerman would not have reason to fear for his life, and thus would have no reason to shoot.

Lack of DNA under the fingernails means nothing.
I've been in two fights where I felt my life was in danger. In no case did I end up with my DNA under their fingernails, or their DNA under mine. We weren't scratching each other. If I put my hands on your face and slam your head into the ground, my fingernails won't touch you. They're located on the side of my hand that's not touching you.

Bloody noses obey the law of gravity.
I get bloody noses regularly (due to allergies). When I'm laying on my back, the blood runs to the back of my nose and down my throat, because that's the direction gravity pulls it. While either Zimmerman or Martin may have violated the law, I'm fairly certain that neither violated the law of gravity.

Racial profiling is irrelevant.
Florida has laws to prevent its enforcement agencies from engaging in racial profiling. Those laws don't cover neighborhood watches.

Zimmerman clearly exercised poor judgment (which is not illegal under Florida law). He may have actually committed an act of second degree murder or manslaughter. But the prosecutor didn't meet the burden of proof.

Texans shooting burglars is irrelevant, it's not self-defense, and it is still completely legal.
Texas law (chapter 9, subchapter D) allows deadly force to be used in defense of property. If the property owner believes that force is necessary to recover the property, and the attempt to recover the property is immediate or during "fresh pursuit," then the use of force is perfectly legal. A property owner can shoot a burglar in the back in order to prevent him from escaping with the owner's property.

In Texas, a burglar's life is worth less than a piece of property.

This has nothing to do with race. It's just the letter of the law.

It's also completely irrelevant to Zimmerman's trial. Martin didn't steal anything. Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin because he thought he stole something. Most importantly, neither of them was in Texas.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A 17 year old was stalked by a man with a gun who ultimately killed him, for walking home and being black.

That is not proven. "Guilty by reason of opinion" is a pretty irresponsible standard.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is not proven. "Guilty by reason of opinion" is a pretty irresponsible standard.

And I've met fellow jurors who adhere to this standard.
Scary, eh?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And I've met fellow jurors who adhere to this standard.
Scary, eh?

And they vote.

 

[Revoltingest]

When we see the extent to which lawyers will create emotional impressions to sway juries, & tremendous media/political pressure which can be applied to exonerate or convict a person, it reinforces the high standard that we shall not convict he accused of a crime unless we believe beyond a reasonable doubt that they're guilty, based upon objective evidence.

 

[dust1n]

Whichever came first, the broken nose or the head slamming, is kinda irrelevant.

What I'm saying is, the physical evidence proves these three things:

1. Martin caused head trauma to Zimmerman by slamming his head into the ground.
2. Martin broke Zimmerman's nose.
3. Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him.

Really? What physical evidence proves he caused head trauma. The medical records for Zimmerman seem to indicate there was no head trauma:

"George Zimmerman suffered two minor cuts to his scalp but no serious head trauma during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin, according to his medical report.The just-released document states he suffered a broken nose, but no deviation of the septum, and two black eyes, The Miami Herald says."

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...or-zimmerman-suffered-no-serious-head-trauma/

"The medical records document several injuries, but also state that the only reason Zimmerman sought medical attention was because he needed a doctor’s note to return to work, Duval County Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda said in court last week...


The report also said although Zimmerman did not have any blurry vision or dizziness, he said he got nauseous every time he thought of the night’s violence.


The report detailed two open wounds on the back of Zimmerman’s head, one two centimeters and one half a centimeter, which did not require stitches. She described his head as “normocephalic and atraumatic’’ — normal and without injuries."

Medical records: George Zimmerman had black eyes, painful broken nose but no head trauma - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

His nose was broken sure... and we know that Zimmerman was on bottom when he shot. They were both on top at some point.

But he could not have sustained his head injuries while on the bottom, or else blood wouldn't be running from the back of his head, around the neck, and towards his ears, you know, by virtue of gravity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

They were both on top at some point.

Your evidence?

 

[Revoltingest]

But he could not have sustained his head injuries while on the bottom, or else blood wouldn't be running from the back of his head, around the neck, and towards his ears, you know, by virtue of gravity.

Your conclusions differ from the expert witness....

SANFORD, Fla. — Evidence supports George Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin was on top of him when Zimmerman fired the shot that claimed Trayvon's life, a forensic pathologist testified Tuesday at Zimmerman's murder trial."The medical evidence is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's statement," said Vincent Di Maio, an expert witness for the defense. The pathologist also found that Trayvon lived no more than three minutes after the shooting and probably was conscious for at least 10 to15 seconds.
Di Maio also testified that Zimmerman's head injuries could have been caused by coming into contact with concrete and that such injuries can be very dangerous. That testimony supported Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was slamming his head into a sidewalk.
Di Maio said Zimmerman had at least six injuries from the struggle: two head lacerations, two wounds to his temples and wounds on his nose and forehead. Those injuries were consistent with having his head banged into a sidewalk, Di Maio said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-zimmerman-trayvon-martin--marijuana/2501293/
Whom should be given greater credibility?

 

[Awoon]

Your conclusions differ from the expert witness....

Pathologist supports Zimmerman's description of attack
Whom should be given greater credibility?

Why didn't the rain wash off his bleeding head? Is he taking blood thinners?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why didn't the rain wash off his bleeding head? Is he taking blood thinners?

I don't know.

 

[Awoon]

I don't know.

And now we'll never know.

 

[Falvlun]

That is not proven. "Guilty by reason of opinion" is a pretty irresponsible standard.

Neither is it proven that Trayvon initiated a confrontation and that Zimmerman was rightly defending his life, and yet, many posters in this thread seem perfectly fine depicting Zimmerman as the victim and Trayvon as the scary bad guy.

I am not saying whether there is enough evidence to legally convict Zimmerman or not.

But I think any person could look at this case and see that Zimmerman created this situation, that he ultimately made decisions-- unreasonable, unnecessary, and remarkably poor ones-- that resulted in him taking this teenager's life.

For that, I hold him responsible for killing Trayvon, and think that it would be an injustice if he were not held accountable.

 

[Awoon]

Neither is it proven that Trayvon initiated a confrontation and that Zimmerman was rightly defending his life, and yet, many posters in this thread seem perfectly fine depicting Zimmerman as the victim and Trayvon as the scary bad guy.

I am not saying whether there is enough evidence to legally convict Zimmerman or not.

But I think any person could look at this case and see that Zimmerman created this situation, that he ultimately made decisions-- unreasonable, unnecessary, and remarkably poor ones-- that resulted in him taking this teenager's life.

For that, I hold him responsible for killing Trayvon, and think that it would be an injustice if he were not held accountable.

Too bad the jury doesn't get to hear everything we have heard during the trial.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Neither is it proven ...

And if neither has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, stop asserting it as fact.

 

[dust1n]

Your conclusions differ from the expert witness....

Pathologist supports Zimmerman's description of attack
Whom should be given greater credibility?

The forensic scientist didn't claim that Zimmerman's head was, in fact, beaten into the concrete. He said the injuries were consistent. I personally don't see what two bruised temples, a bruised forehead and a broken noise have anything to do with having one's head slammed on the ground, but that's a side issue. There's no bruising on the back of the head. I also don't find head-smashing into concrete very consistent with body lying face down in the grass.

 

[Falvlun]

And if neither has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, stop asserting it as fact.

If by "it" you are talking about this quote of mine below, well, this part of the story is about the only fact we do have.

A 17 year old was stalked by a man with a gun who ultimately killed him, for walking home and being black.

 

[dust1n]

Your evidence?

The multiple testimonies that contradict who was on top, which leaves me to believe that both could have possible been on top, which does happen often in fights. In addition, the fact that dried blood indicates dripping took place from front to back, which, again, would be physically impossible if someone was on their back, or even standing straight.

Your evidence that this man had head trauma, which you seem to have agreed that it was the case there was physical evidence of this?

 

[Revoltingest]

The forensic scientist didn't claim that Zimmerman's head was, in fact, beaten into the concrete. He said the injuries were consistent. I personally don't see what two bruised temples, a bruised forehead and a broken noise have anything to do with having one's head slammed on the ground, but that's a side issue. There's no bruising on the back of the head. I also don't find head-smashing into concrete very consistent with body lying face down in the grass.

This means Zimmerman's story is believable, which is at least a reasonable doubt to interfere with conviction.
And this was not the only evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, assaulting him.

 

[Falvlun]

This means Zimmerman's story is believable, which is at least a reasonable doubt to interfere with conviction.
And this was not the only evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, assaulting him.

I don't understand why we need to know how the scuffle occurred at all. If two guys got into a bar brawl and one shot the other dead in the ensuing fight, then the shooter would be convicted of manslaughter. That's what happens, and should happen, when you kill people.

And the Zimmerman scenario is even worse, in that the shooter followed someone who was otherwise minding his own business.